I. Overview

The first official meeting of the U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) took place April 2-3 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting was chaired by Jerry Melillo and Tony Janetos, the co-chairs of the NAST. An organizational meeting of the NAST took place February 8-9 to introduce members and overview terms of reference. This April 2-3 meeting was the first to take place under a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) charter.

All of the ten members of the NAST participated in part or all of the meeting - eight in person, two by conference call. In addition, twenty two representatives of the federal National Assessment Working Group (NAWG), one representative of the National Academy of Sciences, and two members of the public participated in the meeting. On the afternoon of the first day, the Science Advisor to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Jack Gibbons and the Acting Associate Director for Environment, Rosina Bierbaum joined the group and discussed their expectations for the assessment. Robert Corell, Michael MacCracken and Melissa Taylor were also present for the full meeting in their capacity as leadership and staff of the United States Global Change Research Program.

II. Attendance

The following members of the Synthesis Team participated in the meeting:

• Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State University
• Tony Janetos, NASA Headquarters (Co-Chair)
• Linda Joyce, USDA Forest Service (by conference call)
• Tom Karl, NOAA Climatic Data Center (by conference call; sent colleague Dave Easterling)
• Jerry Melillo, Woods Hole MBL (Co-Chair)
• Barbara Miller, Rankin International
• Granger Morgan, Carnegie-Mellon University
• Edward Parson, Harvard/Kennedy School of Government
• Richard Richels, Electric Power Research Institute
• David Schimel, National Center for Atmospheric Research

The following participants in the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Assessment Working Group, and/or the general public attended the meeting:

• Richard Ball, Department of Energy (by conference call)
• Susan Bassow, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Robert Corell, National Science Foundation (Chair, Subcommittee on Global Change Research)
• Susan Curley, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Paul Dresler, Department of Interior (Chair, National Assessment Working Group)
• Jerry Elwood, Department of Energy
• Karen Fraser, NOAA
• John Gibbons, Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director)
• David Goodrich, United States Global Change Research Program
• Anne Grambsch, Environmental Protection Agency
• Dick Greenfield, National Science Foundation
• Bruce Hayden, National Science Foundation
• Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News
• Fred Kaiser, US Forest Service
• Michael MacCracken, United States Global Change Research Program
• LaShaunda Malone, United States Global Change Research Program
• Lynn Mortensen, United States Global Change Research Program
• Richard Moss, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• Rick Piltz, United States Global Change Research Program
• Joel Scheraga, Environmental Protection Agency
• Lowell Smith, National Academy of Sciences
• Melissa Taylor, United States Global Change Research Program

III. Welcome and Overview

It was announced that the Synthesis Team is now official. The GSA gave their concurrence in mid-February on the new committee; the National Science Foundation then sent the Notice of Establishment to the Federal Register. On March 11, the charter was filed with Congress, making the committee legal under FACA guidelines.

The Co-Chairs of the Synthesis Team announced that the National Assessment Plan, which outlines the elements and implementation of the overall project, is now in the process of getting approval from the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and will then go to the National Science and Technology Council (chaired by the President) for approval. To date, two changes have been recommended by the SGCR and approved by the Synthesis Team.

IV. Climate Scenarios

At the February Organizational Meeting of the Synthesis Team, a sub-group was formed to draft a white paper discussing the three elements recommended to be included: (a) historical climatology; (b) general circulation model simulations; and (c) "what if" component. The following were key recommendations developed through discussion of this white paper:

A. Historical Climatology

The Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP) and the U.S. Historical Climate Network (HCN) were described as synergistic and fundamentally consistent sources of data. The HCN data set consists of real observations while the VEMAP data set has been processed using various diagnostic tools.

• The Synthesis Team recommended centrally providing VEMAP and HCN daily data to the regional and sectoral teams, and providing pointers to the larger HCN network. Regional and sectoral assessment teams could make different choices about how to use this data for looking at past trends or constructing analogue scenarios. It was decided that this guidance should be very general. In addition, it was decided that the Synthesis Team would construct a data file - or "atlas" that looks at statistical (historical) changes by mega-region.

B. General Circulation Model Simulations

The Synthesis Team discussed the initial proposal to (a) use results from the United Kingdom (UKMO) and Max-Planck models to conduct transient simulations in which emissions grow exponentially 1% per year up to 2100, and (b) try to incorporate a stabilization run by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in which concentrations in the atmosphere return to 550 ppm.

The Synthesis Team discussed the problems with this approach. The lack of daily data was seen as a key concern because they are needed for consideration of interannual variability and downscaling.

In terms of the stabilization component, it was noted that NCAR has three model runs in the works: (1) the historical baseline, which is currently running in Australia; (2) the stabilization run, which is ready to go once computer time becomes available, and (3) the Business as Usual run, for which they are compiling the forcings.

• The Synthesis Team recommended exploring using results from the Canadian model as the primary set of simulations for this assessment. Secondly, they recommended using the NCAR comparison between stabilization and Business as Usual runs primarily for the Synthesis Team; this would be less useful to the regions because the variation comes mainly after 2030. The Synthesis Team also strategized about how to find the computer time for these NCAR runs (covered below). Finally, the Synthesis Team recommended that the Canadian data be supplemented by 80% confidence intervals derived from other models (e.g., 1st quartile of Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)).

C. "What If" Component

The Synthesis Team discussed the concept of the third "what if" component and clarified that it was meant to be an incremental sensitivity analysis to assist in defining vulnerabilities. This had raised concerns due to the issue of plausibility (how to assure that the scenarios constructed were not unrealistic), although it was pointed out that sometimes this comes at the end: once you define the conditions that stress the system, you then explore whether these conditions are foreseeable in a given timeframe. Secondly, some agencies and others had objected to terminology such as "breaking points" or "worst case scenarios".

• The Synthesis Team endorsed this inverse method as a key analytical concept and recommended that this element be retained in the Plan for both regions and sectors; while there should be some check on plausibility, in general it was suggested to give the teams license to explore where the thresholds exist and if these conditions are foreseeable within the timeframe of this assessment.

D. Next Steps: Climate Scenarios Component

The Synthesis Team outlined the steps that needed to be taken to implement the recommendations made in the discussion of Climate Scenarios:

1. Historical Data Accessibility

   The Synthesis Team will assure that HCN and VEMAP data sets are accessible through one web location with a tutorial and instructions about how to use the historical statistics that have been developed. (Discussions will be planned with NCAR and NCDC).

2. Request for Canadian Model

   The Synthesis Team will assure that a formal request is made to the Canadians for the use of their model in this official activity. (A process was decided for writing a letter).

3. GCM Data Accessibility

   The Synthesis Team will assure that the climate model data sets are in once place and accessible through a VEMAP protocol. (Discussions were planned with NCAR, pending response from the Canadians).

4. Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)

   Members of the Synthesis Team will have a discussion about the development of data through the Climate Model Intercomparison Project, involving DOE. (A meeting was proposed for April 21st).

5. NCAR Computer Time

   Members of the Synthesis Team and others will follow up on the issue of computer time to assure that NCAR can provide the stabilization and Business as Usual runs. (It was decided that a letter of intent to the allocation committee would be prepared in support of a proposal to be submitted by NCAR and NAST).

6. Regional Training

   The National Assessment Working Group and the National Assessment Coordination Office will plan a regional meeting to present the scenarios. (This issue was revisited during the discussion of the timetable and was tentatively planned as the second major meeting with the regions).

V. Socioeconomic Scenarios

A. Proposed Approach

The Sub-Group formed at the organizational meeting presented a white paper outlining how the two-dimensional schematic (below, from previous Minutes) might be employed for both regions and sectors.

The white paper being drafted is framed as a memo to the regional and sectoral teams describing how to follow this method. This approach is meant to be a framework to enable the teams to do sensitivity analyses, which would need to be backed up by socioeconomic information that is specific to the region or sector. It was previously suggested (and repeated at this meeting) that each region would be asked to use this to examine 2-3 key sectors.

B. Example as Illustration

As an example dealing with the forest products industry in the southeastern US:

CASE 1: High prices and demand for forest products; strong regional (and national) economy which has considerable capacity to absorb changes in the mix of economic activities in the region which also is imposing strong competing demands for land use.

CASE 2: Low prices and demand for forest products; strong regional (and national) economy which has considerable capacity to absorb changes in the mix of economic activities in the region which also is imposing strong competing demands for land use.

CASE 3: High prices and demand for forest products; weak regional (and national) economy which has little capacity to absorb changes in the mix of economic activities in the region which is not imposing strong competing demands for land use.

CASE 4: Low prices and demand for forest products; weak regional (and national) economy which has little capacity to absorb changes in the mix of economic activities in the region which is not imposing strong competing demands for land use.

Background data on population, land use, economic and other trends in the region could supplement these scenarios, where available, to assist the teams in making informed judgments about future conditions in the region, although it was acknowledged that such data often might not often be available.

C. Next Steps: Socioeconomic Scenarios Component

The Subgroup noted that they could have a revised draft of the white paper by the end of April. In particular, they would deal with the following:

1. Socioeconomic data

   It was decided that a letter would be drafted to Oak Ridge National Lab to discuss what type of data was needed for this activity; it was emphasized that they needed ranges with confidence intervals, not median estimates.

2. Interaction between sectors

   Further thought will go into how to examine the interactions between sectors. As it stands, for example, a forest study would have to consider assumptions about water, but there are no provisions to look at water under altered climate conditions. Similarly, it was decided to look more into combinations of events that could potentially have non-linear effects.

3. Stabilization versus non-stabilization

   There is interest in examining if a stabilization scenario would have any impact on the sectors being studied, given the timeframe that will be used in most of the analyses.

4. International

   It was decided that the sub-group should become more familiar with the IPCC approach used in the emission scenario special report in which four plausible alternative futures are sketched in meticulous detail with reliable data sources.

VI. Templates

Templates were defined as the outline of each of the reports, as the questions to ask of the regional and sectoral teams, and as a general approach for the Synthesis Report. Various approaches that were discussed included using narratives rather than generic discussions of impacts, and thinking through figures from the outset. However, asking each regional and sectoral team to follow similar steps was seen as necessary for obtaining results that could be synthesized at a national level.

A. Proposed Guidance

The Synthesis Team determined that they would provide general guidance to the regions and sectors about an approach to follow; the following was proposed as guidance to the regional and sectoral teams (subject to revision and finalization):

1. Based on the prior identification of key issues, people and resources (from the regional workshops, the Climate Forum, etc.), select a few "sectors" to proceed with addressing the key questions.
2. Elaborate the details of the socioeconomic scenarios, based on the memo (being prepared)
3. Proceed with the comparative analyses of sectors, based on the climate and socioeconomic scenarios (always clarify the scenario used for each finding).
4. Seek to identify:
   • international linkages
   • key vulnerabilities
   • cross-sectoral linkages
   • key decision points and coping strategies, and
   • net benefits and opportunities
5. Identify key information needs.

B. Proposed Driving Questions

The following were some of the driving questions proposed by members of the Synthesis Team (subject to revision and finalization):

1. Why should we care (about climate change for this region or sector)? How important will climate change be over the next 25-30 years? 100 years? What are the costs? How does it or will it compare to other problems?
2. What are the specific vulnerabilities for this region or sector?
3. What are key decision points? Coping strategies? Win/win scenarios? Benefits of different levels of adaptation?
4. What are the research needs for this region or sector?

C. Next Steps: Templates

An initial guidance letter for the regions and sectors will be drafted by the Synthesis Team Co-Chairs. The memo on socioeconomic scenarios will be an attachment to this letter. Two meetings involving the regions will serve to discuss this approach (see Timetable).

VII. Timetable

The Synthesis Team discussed additions and revisions to their timetable, as follows:

VIII. National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO)

The Synthesis Team discussed their needs and expectations for the National Assessment Coordination Office (NACO), which include organizing meetings, monitoring regional progress, and maintaining broad communication channels on progress in the assessment.

The Synthesis Team discussed qualifications for two additional staff members for the Office (who could be hired or seconded), including the ability to explain the scenarios and their use, and intelligence gathering in regions.

The new official Web site, which is being developed through Oak Ridge National Laboratory was announced, although it was emphasized that this is still under development, in part awaiting approved text from the National Assessment Plan:

http://www.nacc.usgcrp.gov/

IX. OSTP Participation

Dr. John Gibbons (Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Dr. Rosina Bierbaum (Acting Associate Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy) participated for a half hour of the first day of the meeting. This was Dr. Gibbons' next to last day before leaving his position.

Dr. Gibbons noted the Administration's deep appreciation for this effort, and acknowledged that it would be a tough task. He made the following recommendations:

• First get your timeline worked out.
• Visualize the final product; try drafting the Executive Summary at the beginning and see what directions it leads you in.
• Scenarios are important, but don't get too caught up in them.
• Think of the most important ways to visualize your key messages.
• Think about the arguments that need to be countered.
• Think about how the information will be used.

He reminded the group that Congress is the primary audience for the Synthesis Report, as the surrogate for the American people - and to think about what would engage Congress, and what style they would prefer or require.

Dr. Gibbons was thanked and applauded profusely for his contribution to this process and in general for his achievements as the Director of OSTP.

X. Certification

I certify that these Minutes accurately reflect discussions at this Meeting:

Melissa J. Taylor, Rapporteur/Executive Secretary, NAST